Non-compete clauses are common practice in the finance and tech fields, but what about the cutthroat world of sandwich preparation?

As the Huffington Post reported this week, a Jimmy John's employment agreement includes a non-competition clause agreement that applies to low-wage staff including sandwich makers and delivery drivers.

"By signing the covenant, the worker agrees not to work at one of the sandwich chain's competitors for a period of two years following employment at Jimmy John's. But the company's definition of a 'competitor' goes far beyond the Subways and Potbellys of the world. It encompasses any business that's near a Jimmy John's location and that derives a mere 10 percent of its revenue from sandwiches."

While it's unclear whether the 2,000-location chain has ever gone after a sandwich worker who took their talents to Togo's, the effective blackout area for a former Jimmy John's employee would include 6,000 square miles spread across 44 states.

What's more startling, the New York Times writes, is that this practice is becoming more common.

"Noncompete clauses are now appearing in far-ranging fields beyond the worlds of technology, sales and corporations with tightly held secrets, where the curbs have traditionally been used. From event planners to chefs to investment fund managers to yoga instructors, employees are increasingly required to sign agreements that prohibit them from working for a company's rivals."

What do you think? Should sandwich makers and hair stylists be forced to sign non-compete agreements? Can those agreements even be enforced?